DATE OF FILING : 12-07-2010.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 26-11 -2010.
Basudev Roy,
son of Khandu Charan Roy,
residing at 38, Sadar Boxi Lane,
P.S. and District – Howrah . Complainant.
Versus -
1. CESC Ltd.,
having its registered office at CESC House,
Chowringhee Square,
Kolkata.
2. District Engineer,
CESC Ltd., Howrah Regional Office,
of 433/1, G.T. Road ( N ), P.S. Golabari,
Howrah – 711101.
3. Pancho Gopal Nandy,
son of Late Ananda Mohan Nandy,
residing at 38, Sadar Boxi Lane,
P.S. and District – Howrah Opposite Parties.
P R E S E N T
1. Honble President : Shri J. N. Ray.
2. Honble Member : Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya.
C O U N S E L
Representative for the Complainant : Shri Nirmal Kr. Kamila,
Ld. Advocate.
Representative for the O.P. nos. 1 and 2 : Shri Debasis Chatterjee,
Ld. Advocate. Representatives for the O.P. no. 3 : Shri Barun De Sarkar,
Ld. Advocates.
F I N A L O R D E R
This is to consider an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 praying for an order of installation of new electric connection on the ground of deficiency in service.
Fact of the case, in brief, is that the complainant is a consumer of o.p. no. 1 and 2 within the meaning, scope and extend of the C. P. Act, 1986. The complainant is a monthly premises tenant under the o.p. no. 3 at 38, Sadar Boxi Lane, P.S. and District – Howrah. The complainant used to pay rent month by month to the o.p. no. 3 and the o.p. no. 3 issued rent receipt in favour of the complainant. Thereafter the o.p. no. 3 refused to accept monthly rent from the complainant, accordingly the complainant deposited the monthly rent before the court. The complainant had applied for new connection ( domestic ) at his dwelling house before the o.p. no. 2. Accordingly the men of the o.p. no. 2 went to the spot for an inspection and after inspection MASD Bill was also sent to the complainant vide MASD Bill no. 06/06434/10/2/1 dated 21-04-2010 for Rs. 1,160/-. Out of that amount complainant has paid Rs. 500/- as earnest money on 07-04-2010 and the balance sum of Rs. 660/- was paid on 29-04-2010. After receiving the said sum o.p. no. 2 went to the site for installation of the meter but could not do the same due to objection raised by the landlord / o.p. no. 3. On 22-05-2010 o.p. no. 2 sent a letter in which o.p. no. 2 stated that the meter could not be fixed because of two reasons: ( i ) meter board shed has not been extended and ( ii) main switch has not been installed yet.
The complainant admitted that a title suit being T.S. No. 297 of 2004 is still pending before the Ld. 3rd Court of Civil Judge ( Jr. Division) , filed by o.p. no. 3 against the complainant. O. p. no. 3 is trying to restrain the complainant from taking separate meter in his own name, moreover, the o.p. no. 3 is not giving free access to the meter board position to the o.p. no. 2. The complainant has stated that though the complainant has complied with all the requisite formalities asked by the o.p. no. 2 including the payment of MASD Bill, but o.p. nos. 1 and 2 did not proceed with the application of the complainant who is a bonafide consumer of o.p. nos. 1 and 2 .So there is certainly an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. no. 1 and 2 The complainant prays for electric connection with separate meter .The complainant has also stated that if there is any problem to install separate meter at the existing meter board position, in that case he would pray for separate meter in his occupied portion. As there is a dispute between o.p. no. 3 and the complainant he prays for police assistance also. Hence the application.
O.P. nos. 1, 2 CESC Ltd., and o.p. no. 3 contested the case by filing two separate written versions.
Contention of o.ps. no. 1 and 2 interalia is that on receipt of application from the complainant for installation of the electric connection proper inspection was made. As per norms MASD Bill was issued and the complainant deposited the bill amount. O.ps. no. 1 and 2 have admitted in their written version that an application was received from the complainant dated on 07-04-2010 vide M.R. No. 06/06434/10. On the same date CESC Ltd. sent a letter to the complainant informing him that an inspection would be carried on 16.04.2010.During inspection it appeared that the applicant was a tenant and wanted a separate meter at the existing service position at the premises 38, Sadar Boxi Lane, P.S. and District – Howrah. After compliance of all formalities the CESC men went to install the electric meter in favour of the complainant on 20-05-2010 but could not do so (i) as meter board shed has not been extended and ( ii) no main switch was installed as yet. The complainant was duly informed by CESC by a letter dated 22-05-2010. It is also admitted by the o.p. nos. 1 and 2 that one title suit being T.S. No. 297 of 2004 is pending before the 3rd Court of Civil Judge, ( Jr. Division ). In their written version o.ps. no. 1 and 2 has stated that Section 43 of the Electricity Act provides provision for supply to a consumer but the act does not mention that a supply has to be given by a separate service connection at the complainants occupied portion. The offer for installation of supply would fulfill the Licensees obligation to provide supply to an applicant as such the CESC Ltd. cannot be blamed for unfair trade practice and / or deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. So there is no negligence or unfair trade practices on the part of o.ps. no. 1 and 2 and hence the instant case should be liable to be dismissed.
In the written version o.p. no. 3, Panchu Gopal Nandy, has denied all the materials facts. O.p. no. 3 has denied that complainant is a consumer of o.p. no. 1 and 2 and the complainant is not a monthly premises tenant under the o.p. no. 3 at rental of Rs. 90/- per month. O.p. no. 3 has stated that the complainant was a monthly tenant along with electricity amount of Rs. 90/- and the complainant has been evicted due to default and other reasonable grounds and now the complainant is a trespasser. It is also denied about the application letter by the complainant for electric connection, inspection by o.ps. no. 1 and 2 and payment of MASD Bill by the complainant. Counsel for o.p. no. 3 has argued that the complainant gives the rent for his tenanted portion only through Rent Control Howrah, does not give any rent for the meter room. So the o.p. no.3 cannot allow the installation of separate meter of the complainant in his meter room. It is also stated by the o.p. no. 3 that an eviction being no. T.S. No. 297 of 2004 is now in P.H. stage. The complainant is trying to hotchpotch the said case and the complainant has no way to stay in the suit property after P.H. and Argument of the case. It is also stated in the written version of o.p. no. 3 that the complainant is not entitled to get any separate meter in his own name at his tenanted premises. So the instant case should be dismissed with high cost.
In view of the pleading of the parties following points arose for determination :
Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. nos. 1 and 2, CESC Ltd.
Is the complainant entitled to get an order in terms of Section 14 of the C.P. Act, 1986
DECISION WITH REASONS :
Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience of
discussion and for brevity.
Fact remains that the complainant applied for electric connection on 07-04-2010 for his occupied portion of the land. It is also admitted that CESC sent their men for inspection. Accordingly the complainant has submitted necessary charges of Rs. 1,160/- towards MASD Bill sent by CESC Ltd. on 16-04-2010 and 29-04-2010 . It is also admitted after that CESC sent a letter dt. 22.05.2010 to the complainant stating that the installation of meter could not be done due to two reasons: meter board shed has not been extended and no main switch was installed. On the day of final hearing it is also admitted that during the pendency of this case men of o.p. no.2 went to install the meter in the existing meter board position but could not do so due to objection raised by o.p. no. 3. Complainant and o.p. no. 1 and 2 CESC Ltd. have admitted that the same could not be done due to obstruction raised by o.p. no. 3.
It should be mentioned here that at the time of inspection the o.p. no. 2 did not raise any point regarding the extension of the meter board shed. But in the letter dated 22-05-2010 CESC Ltd. informed the complainant the aforesaid reason for not giving the connection.
Upon hearing of the parties and on scrutiny of the papers on record along with annexure documents we find that instant application is praying for electric connection from o.p. nos. 1 and 2. CESC Ltd. They have conceded and submitted before us that they have no objection for installation of new electric connection of the complainant at the existing meter board position if free access is given to them and complainant has to install the main switch. O.ps. 1 and 2. CESC Ltd. has also admitted that during pendency of this case their men went to install the new connection but could not execute the job due to resistance of o.p,. no. 3.The Forum is in view that o.p. no. 3 has no legal ground for such obstruction. It is also admitted that the complainant resides at 38, Sadar Boxi Lane, P.S. and District – Howrah. As per Electricity Act, the complainant being the occupier of the premises is entitled to get electric line from CESC Ltd. and he cannot be debarred from getting such relief. However, when the O.Ps. no. 1 and 2. CESC Ltd. have no objection then the prayer of the complainant must be considered. There is no merit of the objection raised by o.p. no. 3 who resisted the o.ps. no. 1 and 2 CESC Ltd. men for giving electric connection.
The defence taken by o.p. no.3 is not acceptable. It is admitted that a civil suit is pending between complainant and o.p. no. 3. But o.p. no. 3 has admitted that till now complainant occupies the tenanted portion under o.p. no. 3. The dispute between them is totally a civil dispute. The documents speak that the complainant has applied for electricity and paid necessary charges. In his written version o.p. no. 3 has mentioned some problems with the complainant which are civil dispute. The Forum has no jurisdiction to pass any order regarding their civil dispute.
As per the Electricity Act, 2003 Section 43 provides that o.p. nos. 1 and 2. CESC Ltd. can supply electricity at the premises on request made by the owner / occupier within one month from the receipt of the application. According to the law the complainant being an occupier of the premises is entitled to get the electric connection. The o.p. no.3 has no right to resist against the supply of electricity. All documents speak that complainant obviously resides at the premises for which the electric connection was prayed.
Now turning to the question of deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. nos. 1 and 2. CESC Ltd it appears that during the pendency of this case the men of the CESC Ltd went for installation of electric connection but due to the objection they could not install the same. They have informed it to the complainant properly and requested the complainant to inform them the date and time when the access to the meter board position will be made available to enable them to proceed further in the matter. But there is no evidence to show that o.ps. no. 1 and 2. CESC Ltd have taken any legal action against the said objector.
In this connection provision of Section 163 of the Electricity Act, 2003 may be referred to. According to the aforesaid Section the o.ps. no. 1 to 3. CESC Ltd should have taken legal action against the objector by approaching to the local police or by approaching to the local Executive Magistrate for necessary order regarding installation of the new service connection of the complainant. By not taking such legal action the o.ps. no. 1 and 2. CESC Ltd has committed deficiency in service.
Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case the Forum holds and concludes that the complainant is entitled to get appropriate order in terms of Section 14 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
In the result the application succeeds.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the consumer complaint is allowed on contest against o.p. nos. 1 and
2, CESC Ltd and dismissed against o.p. no. 3 but without cost.
The o.p. nos. 1 and 2, CESC Ltd. is directed to give electric connection by installing separate electric meter for the complainant within 30 days hereof.
That the complainant is also hereby directed to arrange for installation of main switch for giving his new electric connection .
That the o.p. no. 3 shall not raise any objection regarding electric connection of the complainant.
In case of any illegal objection by any person complainant and o.p. nos. 1 and 2. CESC Ltd shall approach to the local police station for help.
O.p. nos. 1 and 2. CESC Ltd, in case of illegal objection, shall also take necessary action in terms of provision of 163 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Let copies of the order be supplied to the parties, free of costs.
